JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. Vide judgment dated 17.2.2012 grant of decree of divorce to the respondent-wife in her petition against the appellant-husband on the ground of cruelty, has brought the husband to this Court in appeal against the same. 2. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.11.2002 at Gharaunda (District Karnal) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, the parties to this litigation had been living together. A daughter named Ms. Anishka was born out of this wedlock on 22.8.2003 at Karnal. 3. Stand of the respondent-wife was that despite having spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- by her parents on dowry in the marriage, neither husband nor his family members were satisfied and rather they had been demanding a Santro car and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the wife and that failure on this count had brought miseries for her as the husband had been maltreating and beating her quite often. 4. Giving specific instances of cruelty by the appellant-husband and his family members, it was claimed that an attempt was made to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her which attempt was foiled due to God sent arrival of Balram Gupta, brother-in-law of the husband, who then saved her. Matter was reported to the police by her parents vide Diary No.1236 dated 7/8.9.2007 of S.P./CIA. There was upheaval in the family of the wife resulting in convening of a Panchayat by her father at the residence of the husband, wherein relatives and respectables of the parties had discussed and debated the turmoil in the matrimonial life of the wife, wherein the husband and his family members had admitted their guilt and had rather assured of no harassment to the wife in future. There was peace for some time in the matrimonial home but the respondent-husband started harassing and beating the wife again and returned to his old style of managing and controlling the matrimonial home resulting in restless days and sleepless nights for the wife, who all through was at the receiving end. 5. It is further case of the respondent-wife that when the situation became intolerable any further, her father again convened a Panchayat on 14.12.2007 at his house, where members of families of the parties accompanied by close relations and respectables had also participated. 5. It is further case of the respondent-wife that when the situation became intolerable any further, her father again convened a Panchayat on 14.12.2007 at his house, where members of families of the parties accompanied by close relations and respectables had also participated. This time husband and his family members had been tough and openly reiterated their demand of Santro car and of cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Father of the wife paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the husband and his family members in presence of his brother-in-law Balram Gupta. Though she was kept nicely for some time thereafter but again the situation went the same way. She was severely beaten up on 15.4.2008 when she maintained that her parents were not in a position to fulfil their demand of car and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Sequelly, she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter, whereafter she had been living with her parents since 15.4.2008. 6. Appellant-husband had contested the petition tooth and nail, where denial of each and every allegation made by the wife against him had been made. Controverting allegations of the wife, it was, inter alia, pleaded that she was a lady of dictatorial attitude and was neither co-operative nor was of positive thinking, and rather had been creating problems of different kinds for the husband and his family members. It was asserted that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and without any reasonable cause and thus deserted the marriage. It was claimed that the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) and was ready to maintain the wife. Allegations made by the wife were claimed to be concocted and false. 7. Telling his side of the story, the appellant-husband had mentioned that the respondent-wife had been residing most of the time at her parental house and had been leaving the matrimonial home without any intimation muchless permission of the husband and her conduct had been against peace and harmony of the family. 8. 7. Telling his side of the story, the appellant-husband had mentioned that the respondent-wife had been residing most of the time at her parental house and had been leaving the matrimonial home without any intimation muchless permission of the husband and her conduct had been against peace and harmony of the family. 8. The appellant-husband further averred that the respondent-wife had been compelling him to settle in her parental house at Gharaunda and had been torturing him as she refused to prepare meals, clean clothes and discharge other duties of wife like cohabitation etc., when he had refused to agree to her request of shifting to her parental house. Claiming that the wife had left the matrimonial home taking away her gold and silver ornaments as also valuable clothes and cash of Rs.20,000/- and had refused to return to the matrimonial home despite repeated requests, prayer for dismissal of the petition had been made. 9. The learned lower court had proceeded to adjudicate the dispute between the parties by framing the following issues on 16.4.2010: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as alleged in the petition? OPP 2. Relief. 10. In support of their rival claims, in addition to oral evidence, documentary evidence had also been produced. The wife entering the witness box as PW2 had also brought her father Ramesh Chand Aggarwal in the witness box as PW3, in addition to examining Balram Gupta (brother-in-law of the husband) as PW2. On the contrary, the husband in addition to examining himself as RW1, had produced two more witnesses viz. Vinod Singhal and Sham Jindal as RW2 and RW3 respectively. 11. Version of the wife regarding letting loose on her physical and mental cruelty by the husband (as put forth in the petition as also in her statement as PW1) is sustained and supported by her father Ramesh Chand Aggarwal as PW3 and brother-in-law of the husband viz. Balram Gupta as PW2, notwithstanding sweeping repudiation of her claim by the husband and two of his witnesses, had been accepted by the learned lower court. Stand of the husband that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord taking the child with her on 15.4.2008 and that he had been loving and supporting husband to her and to the daughter throughout, had not been accepted. Stand of the husband that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord taking the child with her on 15.4.2008 and that he had been loving and supporting husband to her and to the daughter throughout, had not been accepted. Aggrieved by the verdict against him, the husband has preferred this appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties while going through the record of the lower court and while evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case in the interface of evidence led by the parties before the lower court. 13. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant-husband is that the learned lower court failed to consider important facts such as filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by him and his consistent stand that he was ready and willing to maintain his wife. It is claimed that the lower court has also failed to take note that marriage was simple and no dowry had been given and further that the wife had admitted in her cross-examination that there was neither any harassment nor the husband was addicted to liquor nor had been misbehaving with her. In short, it was claimed that statement of the wife was wrongly believed when it was contradictory and was untrustworthy. Castigating credentials of Balram Gupta (PW2), it is claimed that he had been consistently interfering in the matrimonial life of the parties and instead of getting the dispute settled, had been escalating the problem and thus was not a creditworthy witness. Claiming the impugned decree to have been passed arbitrarily by the Court, reversal of the same by way of acceptance of the appeal, has been sought. 14. Cruelty as a ground of divorce in terms of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act may be mental or physical. It is not a static concept; it is rather very dynamic. Instances of cruelty with the change of times and in complex situations multiply. Normal wear and tear of life has never been raised to the stature of cruelty. Rather, events and incidents cited to demonstrate cruelty should be of such nature and propensity that it would make aggrieved spouse difficult to live with the other spouse in the matrimonial home. 15. Normally, a wife leaves no stone unturned to make her marriage a success. Rather, events and incidents cited to demonstrate cruelty should be of such nature and propensity that it would make aggrieved spouse difficult to live with the other spouse in the matrimonial home. 15. Normally, a wife leaves no stone unturned to make her marriage a success. By no means, it should mean that a husband does not make such effort but a wife coming to the court for seeking relief of dissolution of marriage by way of a divorce, is not very common. It is also very uncommon that matters of matrimonial deviations made by either of the spouses, go out of the matrimonial home and that too to the police. It is only when acts of omissions and commissions in discharging matrimonial duties by a spouse become so intense that it becomes difficult for the aggrieved spouse to live with the other spouse and when aggrieved spouse finds imminent threat to the life and limb if no step taking the dispute out of threshold of matrimonial home, is taken. In short, when aggrieved spouse finds no alternative except to dissolve the marriage, matter of matrimonial discordance is taken to the police. 16. When statements of respondent-wife made as PW1 before the lower court is evaluated in its impact on the matrimonial home, it is found that having been married with the respondent on 10.11.2002, she had been tolerating teases and taunts as also ignominy and maltreatment at the hands of the respondent and his parents especially the mother regarding unmet dowry demands. It is a case of specific demand of Santro car and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. 17. Two specific instances of extreme cruelty allegedly let loose by the appellant-husband and his family members have also been quoted. 18. One instance put forth by the respondent-wife is regarding attempt made by the appellant-husband and his family members to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her when she was saved by Balram Gupta, brother-in-law of the husband who arrived there by chance. Though the matter was patched up later, report was made to police authorities by parents of the respondent-wife and her father then had convened a Panchayat at the house of the appellant-husband, where his family members were also present. 19. If we go by version of respondent-wife Poonam PW1, this Panchayat was held at the residence of the appellant-husband in Faridabad. 19. If we go by version of respondent-wife Poonam PW1, this Panchayat was held at the residence of the appellant-husband in Faridabad. It was attended by Balram Gupta, Ghanshyam Dass and father of the wife. Balram Gupta PW2, respondent-wife Poonam PW1 and her father Ramesh Chand Aggarwal PW3 are witnesses to this episode as also of congregation of subsequent Panchayat at the residence of the husband. 20. Testimony of Balram Gupta PW2 is of added importance because he is closely related not to the wife but to the appellant-husband. Even when we weigh statement of respondent-wife PW1 and of her father PW3, we cannot ignore deposition of Balram Gupta PW2 who has withstood a very lengthy and probing cross-examination appearing as PW2 and impact of his testimony has not been whittled down even a little. He is further categorical that the husband and his family members had admitted their guilt. Making assurance on affidavits dated 8.9.2007 and 10.9.2007, the husband had undertaken not to harass the wife in future; the matter was patched up. After a shortwhile, the same old story started again. The wife was again maltreated, teased and tortured resulting in convening another Panchayat of respectables on 14.12.2007. It was held at the residence of parents of the wife. It was attended by the husband, his family members and 4-5 other respectables from his side. Balram Gupta PW2 is categorical that in this meeting, attitude of the husband and his family members which was hawkish and peace at the home front of the wife, could be bought by father of the wife only by giving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the husband and his family members. Veracity and truthfulness of both these incidents is beyond question. 21. On the other hand, only sweeping denial of the case of the respondent-wife has been made by appellant-husband Vibhash alias Rinku RW1. It would not be out of place to mention that in his pointed cross-examination, husband Vibhash alias Rinku (RW1), has conceded the fact of holding of community Panchayat on two occasions as projected by Balram Gupta PW2. The undertaking given by the husband in affidavit dated 8.9.2007 (Ex.P1) leaves no manner of doubt that he was found to be author of miseries of the wife. The undertaking given by the husband in affidavit dated 8.9.2007 (Ex.P1) leaves no manner of doubt that he was found to be author of miseries of the wife. Substantial version of claim of document (Ex.P1) stands testimony to the version of the wife that the husband had undertaken that he would never take liquor, Gutka or any other type of intoxicant and would not indulge in beating, ill-treatment and abusive behaviour towards the wife. He had further undertaken that he would not raise any doubt on her conduct, and that his parents would also not indulge in abusive conduct, maltreatment and beating to the wife. The husband had also agreed that because of his bad habits enumerated therein, the wife had started living separately away from the matrimonial home with her parents. On these assurances in affidavit dated 8.9.2007 (Ex.P1) given by the husband, the wife had agreed to be returned to the matrimonial home. 22. Statement of respondent-wife Poonam PW1 reveals that she was again badly treated. Contention of the husband that document Ex.P1 was result of pressure put on him, was out rightly rejected by the learned lower court and even though efforts had been made to impugn validity of this document but there is no reason to differ from the findings of the learned lower court. 23. Filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the appellant-husband was rightly taken to be a contrivance adopted by the husband to cover up his misdeeds. Had the husband been genuine and true to his matrimonial obligations, he was to go straight to parents of the respondent-wife and making her agreeable, could have brought her back to be restored in the matrimonial home. 24. Testimony of Balram Gupta PW2 was sought to be eclipsed by urging that the appellant-husband was having strained relations with him and thus, the witness was having an axe to grind against the husband. In his conduct, throughout the proceedings of this petition, there is not even a whisper that the husband was having anything against him. There is neither any allegation nor evidence to prove that the husband was having strained relations with Balram Gupta or that he was interfering in his matrimonial home. In his conduct, throughout the proceedings of this petition, there is not even a whisper that the husband was having anything against him. There is neither any allegation nor evidence to prove that the husband was having strained relations with Balram Gupta or that he was interfering in his matrimonial home. Observation of the learned lower court in para 24 of the impugned judgment, being worthy of notice, is reproduced as below: “If a husband does not do any work, he does not earn anything, he take liquor, Gutka and other intoxicants and starts beating his wife and abuses her and his other family members also associate with him in torturing the wife and this continues just two years after the marriage till her leaving the matrimonial home, such a woman would prefer to commit suicide than to go to her matrimonial home. Insofar as the cruelty is concerned, the cruelty may be mental or physical. Ordinary wear and tear in the married life goes on but if the cruelty is to such an extent that the other spouse cannot live with the spouse doing cruelty then it is a futile exercise to ask the complaining spouse to live with other spouse under one roof. There is difference between house and home. House means a building whereas home means a family. Family does not mean living of members together peacefully but members must be mentally with one another. So, in the instant case, keeping in view the admission on the part of the respondent of his habit and also keeping in view the beating and torturing of the petitioner by the respondent and also co-operation of his family members in uprooting the petitioner from her matrimonial home go to show that the marriage or matrimonial alliance between them has become a hell and the parties cannot be supposed to live together with each other.” 25. Further observation made by the learned lower court in para Nos. 36 and 37 is appended as below: “36. When one continues to torture the other spouse, beats, doubts and misbehaves, the other spouse is also to take some step as a reaction. Love and affection cannot be one-sided. Further observation made by the learned lower court in para Nos. 36 and 37 is appended as below: “36. When one continues to torture the other spouse, beats, doubts and misbehaves, the other spouse is also to take some step as a reaction. Love and affection cannot be one-sided. If husband and wife are not on speaking terms and they do not treat each other with love and respect and love and affection is absent in them and they do not cohabit with each other then there is something wrong going on between the two spouses. What is revealed from the affidavit is that the respondent is doubting the character of his wife. He is a drunkard, taking Gutka. In such circumstances, the wife cannot be supposed to surrender to her husband and she cannot continue sexual intercourse as well. In this way the petitioner is not supposed to doing cruelties with the respondent. Sometimes the wife become harsh, irritating and tense due to the cruelty perpetrated upon her which can be visualized from the state of affairs as reflected in affidavit Ex.P1. 37. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon 2007 (2) RCR 515 (Criminal) in case Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and also 2011 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (sic) in case Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple alias Kajal. A perusal of these authorities show that these authorities are of no help to the respondent. Because it is the respondent who is guilty of cruelty and making the life of the petitioner a hell and now allowing her to live and beating, torturing and abusing her just two years after the marriage till her leaving the matrimonial home. Therefore, the spouses cannot be supposed to live together. The marriage alliance has broken beyond repair. There are hardly any chances of reconciliation between the two spouses. The respondent is at fault. The fault of the respondent is such that it cannot be condoned because he is committing the cruelty upon his wife levelling allegations of adultery which is so reflected in affidavit Ex.P1. The marriage alliance has broken beyond repair. There are hardly any chances of reconciliation between the two spouses. The respondent is at fault. The fault of the respondent is such that it cannot be condoned because he is committing the cruelty upon his wife levelling allegations of adultery which is so reflected in affidavit Ex.P1. Reliance for this purpose can be placed on 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 360 (SC) : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 544) in case Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi, 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 168 (SC) : ( AIR 2010 SC 1042 ) in case Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar and 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 393 (Bombay) : ( AIR 2009 Bom 160 ) in case Shobha Mhatardev Lomte v. Mhatardev Tukaram Lomte.” 26. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, findings returned by the learned lower court against the appellant-husband on issue No.1 being correct on facts and in law, do not call for any interference and are affirmed. Sequelly, findings on issue No.2 are also upheld. Consequently, affirming the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Appeal dismissed.